3. He can appoint constitutional judges (the governor gets to appoint state judges to vacant judicial seats, around 100 per year).
4. He can set a new standard of good government, with his good deeds lasting beyond his administration (such as building dams and reinstituting the death penalty for murderers).
5. He can use his “bully pulpit” to educate Californians about the difference between good and evil, with myriad examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, at the very least.
And he can do much more, such as calling special legislative sessions to address one big problem at a time, and deploying California National Guard troops to preserve public safety.
I’m writing this because there’s a real chance to elect a mostly-conservative Republican governor this year. It all depends on conservatives being energized to vote in the “jungle” primary election, starting in early May, so that Bianco and Hilton win the “top two,” guaranteeing one of them will be elected governor in the November run-off.
Californians haven’t elected a Republican governor since Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006. But in this year’s race, opinion polls are suggesting the unthinkable for Democrats: a potential two-man showdown in November in which both candidates are from the GOP. Under the state’s electoral rules, only the top two finishers in the June 2 primary appear on the general election ballot, regardless of party. The leaders in two recent polls were Republicans, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. “In deep-blue California, two Republicans lead the governor’s race,” 3/27/26
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
Now that the March 6 filing deadline for California candidates has come and gone, have the chances increased or decreased to get a mostly-conservative Republican governor?
Even imbalanced, liberal polls show Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton in the “top two” (in California’s “jungle” primary election, only the top two vote-getters go on to the November runoff). And with the big egos of Democrats tempting them to stay in the race (likely to get statewide recognition for their future campaigns), it’s looking more plausible that Republicans could “shut out” the Democrats by winning the “top two.”
Only Democrat Ian Calderon of East Los Angeles, not a statewide “name,” dropped out on Thursday, one day before the March 6 candidate filing deadline. And while he endorsed Eric Swalwell, I suspect Calderon’s racist Hispanic Democrat Party followers will prefer another Hispanic, either Antonio Villaraigosa or Xavier Becerra.
More Democrat Party leaders are worrying, and more Republican Party activists are noticing, that if California conservatives are energized to vote and propel Bianco and Hilton to “top two” positions in the June 2 “jungle” primary, that would “lock in” a mostly-conservative Republican governor in the November runoff, which would be truly historic.
Here’s our new hypothetical scenario of the governor’s race in California’s “jungle” primary. Based on the voter turnout in California’s 2024 presidential general election, SaveCalifornia.com gives 40% of the electorate to conservatives, including Republicans, and 60% of the vote to liberals, including Democrats:
21% Steve Hilton (R) 19% Chad Bianco (R) – – – – – 15% Eric Swalwell (D) 12% Katie Porter (D) 9% Tom Steyer (D) 5% Xavier Becerra (D) 5% Antonio Villaraigosa (D) 3% Betty Yee (D) 3% Tony Thurmond (D) 3% Matt Mahan (D) 5% other
So, if you’re conservative, now is not the time to debate whether Bianco or Hilton is better. For a mostly-Republican governor is only assured if both Republicans get enough support to be the top two vote-getters who go on to the November election, where only their names will be on ballot for governor, and then one of them will be elected governor.
Heavily Democratic California could elect a Republican governor for the first time in two decades as a result of its primary voting system, recent polling suggests. The Golden State has for over a decade mandated “top-two” primaries for state and congressional elections. Candidates in those races compete in the same primary, with the first- and second-place finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advancing to the general election. In California’s 2026 gubernatorial election, however, the presence of many Democrats with no clear frontrunner could possibly lead to the two well-known Republicans taking both spots on the general election ballot, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton. Anthony Iafrate, Daily Caller News Foundation, Dec. 6, 2025
3. Categorically unfair: Rather than a “progressive” tax (which means the more you earn, the more you’re punished), a flat tax is the only FAIR tax, where everybody pays the SAME RATE (and yes, this means “the rich” will still pay a great amount of tax).
From A Biblical case for Proportional (flat) taxation by Jeff Hammond In a proportional (or flat) tax system, every dollar of income earned that is taxable* is taxed at the same rate. Thus every individual is treated identically by the tax code. There is strong Biblical support for treating people impartially, and in an opposite way, strong condemnation for showing partiality or favoritism. This is because we are supposed to image God, and God is impartial.
Romans 2:11 states clearly that God shows no partiality with respect to salvation, (see also Deut. 10:17, Acts 10:34, Job 34:19, and Eph. 6:9). I agree that this is not conclusive, since it isn’t directly talking about taxation, but it does give us an idea of where God’s heart is for how we treat one another. There is a reason why Lady Justice is blindfolded.
However, there are other passages which take us closer to the heart of the matter. Lev 19:15 says “‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.” In this verse, we are told that not only should we not favor the rich, but surprisingly, we should also not favor the poor (see also Ex. 23:3). But why should we think this has applicability to taxation?
A main purpose of Leviticus is to show how the Israelites can live a holy life. Chapter 19 is the pinnacle of how we live holy lives in relation to others, and the commands are given a solid reason—“I am the LORD”–which is repeated throughout the section.
Interestingly, Ch 19 is widely viewed as repeating the Decalogue; clearly Leviticus is summarizing the essence of what Holy Living looks like under God’s moral law. In the middle of this section on Holy Living, comes verse 15, which describes what justice looks like. Do we treat each other according to their just due?
Lev 19:15 helps us understand that a standard for personal holiness will be reflected in a standard for corporate holiness. As John Hartley says in the Word Biblical Commentary, “Since God is just, his people must establish justice in their courts as the foundation of their covenant relationship with him. The inner strength of a nation resides in the integrity of its judicial system.”
While, this is not dealing with taxation, it is dealing with justice in the social setting of the courts—it seems reasonable to conclude that if impartiality is required for the courts, it would be required of government action in general. At least the burden of proof should be on those advocating for a system of partiality, given the extensive Biblical support of impartiality.
RSS 2.0 Feed